Jump to content

Should the waterways provide for housing overspill?

Dominic M

By Dominic M
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

I haven't tried it yet but I'm going for Tom and Jerry, in a bi-polar sort of a way.

 

You short-sighted, ignorant imbecile

 

Tom and Jerry are Hanna Barbera, not Warner Bros.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

Were you moored up at the Brownsover visitors moorings, in Rugby, the other day (just to wander off topic briefly).

 

It is this kind of irrelevant ramblings that spoils the excellent level of debate that this forum is famous for

 

Richard

 

Sorry, infamous

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ymu Rising Star

ymu

Posted
Posted

Ok, you've mentioned so many points that it's difficult to know where to start. So I'll pick one at random.

 

Do you agree that housing benefit should be paid to low earners so they can live in London? I seem to remember you said yes.

No. I've explained here before why I would abolish the welfare state as a subsidy from poor to rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dominic M Influencer

Dominic M

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You short-sighted, ignorant imbecile

 

Tom and Jerry are Hanna Barbera, not Warner Bros.

 

Richard

That's Mr short-sighted ignorant imbecile to you, mate!

 

Just thought I'd push the boundaries of the animation envelope.

 

You're going to tell me about steam engines of the Midland Railway era, 1928-1937 next, aren't you? :)

 

No. I've explained here before why I would abolish the welfare state as a subsidy from poor to rich.

Oh good! I must do a forum search next time I feel suicidal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

That's Mr short-sighted ignorant imbecile to you, mate!

 

Just thought I'd push the boundaries of the animation envelope.

 

You're going to tell me about steam engines of the Midland Railway era, 1928-1937 next, aren't you? :)

<snip?

 

Fool of fools. The Midland was merged into the LMS in 1922!

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minos Collaborator

Minos

Posted
Posted

Back to social housing.

 

Same as I get a bit tetchy with people who complain about others living on their boats without also saying that they're happy to pay 25% more for their licence fee and fuel in return for getting rid of liveaboards. Or, of course, to tell me how their lives wouldn't get more expensive if the facilities they need were getting a fraction of the use.

Well, I don't know if the rich seriously mean it when they say their lives 'won't get more expensive.' Perhaps they mean 'won't become unaffordable.' I know plenty of rich people who want to see certain things priced out of reach of everyone else - and they are not ashamed of it. They aren't buying the view, or the access to the river. They are buying exclusivity: "The right crowd and no crowding."

 

There are people who want to price the waterways out of the reach of people who treat it as an alternative to bricks and mortar. Except for the urban bits they don't like.

 

Notwithstanding your theory on the purpose and effect of benefits, with its strange diffusion of cause and effect, society will always coalesce socially, geographically, financially and aesthetically.

 

Exactly the same segregation existed in the Workers' Paradise. They just lied about it and shot the people who complained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NB Alnwick Veteran II

NB Alnwick

Posted
Posted

Fool of fools. The Midland was merged into the LMS in 1922!

 

Richard

 

No, no, no! The official term was 'amalgamated' - you cannot merge a body with another unless both exist contemporaneously!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

No, no, no! The official term was 'amalgamated' - you cannot merge a body with another unless both exist contemporaneously!

 

I thought that was the stuff in my teeth

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

Has anyone said on any thread they want to get rid of livaboards??

 

That's a tricky one. There have been a lot of threads on this forum alone, let alone in the whole of the internet.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NB Alnwick Veteran II

NB Alnwick

Posted
Posted

Has anyone said on any thread they want to get rid of livaboards??

 

Perhaps not but is this the right place to debate which ones we could get rid of and gain some advantage in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

And they didn't!

 

The stuff in your teeth is probably sausages . . .

 

Ahh, here it is:

 

The reduced-gamma-2 amalgams (sometimes referred to as "high-copper" amalgams [44]) contain approximately equal parts 50% of liquid mercury and 50% of an alloy powder containing:[citation needed]

> 40% silver (Ag)

< 32% tin (Sn)

< 30% copper (Cu)

< 2% zinc (Zn)

< 3% mercury (Hg)

 

Richard

 

It's a bloody shame the Midland wasn't merged into the LNWR/L&Y. That would have shown the buggers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.